I get that it hurts the companies but some plugins are ridiculously overpriced for what your getting, I don't mind paying up to a point but it's got to be realistic. Same with music really, people get too greedy and want too much for things.

Here's the deal, you have to ask how much money are you realistically making from your music? If it's like me and it's nothing at all, I don't see the problem of using cracks to get the job done.

If your Steve Aoki making millions off it... well, probably pay for it mate.

I think you should buy whatever you use, regardless if you make money or not from your music. There are cheap or free alternatives which are also great, so unless you have the money, I think you should go for the free stuff.

Most software developers allow a demo download for you to try for a period of time. Furthermore, I don't trust a piece of cracked software enough to take the risk of bringing in some awful electronic equivalent of the clap; lastly, a good potion of the software I use comes from small developers whom definitely live and breathe this industry and it doesn't fit into my personal moral guidelines to essentially deprive them of some small income.

People like Urs Heckmann (U-He), Chris Randall (Audio Damage), Randy Jones (Madrona Labs), Christiane and Harry Gohs (Virsyn), and plenty of others I haven't mentioned make their living off the licensing of the software they create.

If I can't afford it, I won't pirate it. There are open-source, or outright free things out there one could use if they don't want to lay out cash on a license.

silikon wrote:Most software developers allow a demo download for you to try for a period of time.

That would work for, say, a VST effect or a formula based synth (so, no samples). But I wouldn't ever expect a demo version of orchestral libraries - or heck, any library that has 'GB' in its description.

If I'd be a company I'd spend my pennies on generating goodwill rather than the latest copy protection or scary EULAs. I bought an expensive library some days ago, and yes: 'it can be found elsewhere too'. So, why did I buy it? Simple: I kinda like the company, the product's quality is good and the price is fair enough. Question of course is whether a company should be worried about people who're eventually going to buy, but really want a try-out period. You know, you can visit a music store and play the latest synths, but library-companies have a habit of showing awfully restrained demos - the modern day equivalent of bad factory presets in synths.

My idea, buy it if:- you really really really use it, a lot- you can afford it (you shouldn't go broke because of it)

All the main stuff I use now is payware heavily supplemented by little freeware utilities. But so much adware is creeping into the freeware scene it's getting annoying.

I think the REAPER creators undestand how to act best. They make a phenomenally great product, allow people to figure out how to use it without hassles, then keep the price low with lots of updates and support so people really want to buy it. They totally win.

I used to use a pirated copy of Cool Edit 2000 because it was the only tool around that could do everything I needed it to. I tried to get info on buying it, but even as near-vaporware, 14 years later they still want 300 dollars for it even though similar stuff costs like 30-100 bucks sometimes. Now I don't use it anymore because it's incompatible with my operating system and I use Wavosaur and OcenAudio and WavePad instead (all freewares).

I don't like that I used pirate stuff and I wouldn't do it again, but I learned tons from using it and it and everything else I bought pretty much except for freewares.

The good news is that so much of my DAW is freeware and my paywares really worked out. But I must admit I have paid for a few different DAWs and other programs that never worked after install or failed during install and I never got my money back. So in a way I feel like I paid my dues. Sorry if this makes anybody feel upset. I'm just being honest.

It would be interesting to compare the results of this survey to one like "Do you listen to MP3 tracks that were illegally downloaded, or do you only listen to tracks that you've legally obtained?" While the monetary amounts per unit are different, the thinking and rationalization behind people's actions are likely to be very similar.

For example, one of the remarks above was something like "they sometimes charge way more than the product is really worth" which of course is the same justification given by folks who illegally download MP3s.

People who believe "If it's too much money for what it provides, then I'll choose not to buy and use it" seem to me, to be likely to hold the same attitude whether the product is MP3s or DAWs. As a developer of a software product, I would work hard to come up with a really compelling "demo" version of my product -- spending as much or more on that as what I would spend on anti-piracy technology.

I like the profit sharing scheme. On top of an accessible flat rate, the software developer should earn based upon the income that the product yields, (e.g. media royalties). I don't steal software because I can afford to buy what I need, but there is plenty of MOR software with absurd costs. Also, it's annoying when vendors implement anti-piracy measures that really only penalize the people who actually by the software (e.g. ilok or mobile apps requiring network connectivity to continuously authenticate during product use).